Nesteoil
|
Mail call! edit
Message for you! Scartol • Tok 21:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
International airport edit
I am not an administrator, so I can't help with your request to change the name, but I wanted to explain the American use of "international" for an airport. There are large airports in the US with very modern facilities, but there are no international flights coming in or out, so for a city to be able to claim that they have an "international" airport is very important, especially when it comes to recruiting new business and industry to the area. The officials from local airports with very modern facilities would LOVE to get the title "international airport" because it's a legal term regulated by the industry. In contrast, an airport with one runway and a wooden shack for a terminal that accepts international traffic is a major player in the world and they get invited to "international" events. I hope that helps, it may be crazy, but you wouldn't believe how important one word can be for people who don't have it! Cheers. :) USchick (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just wanted to add that while this term "international" has significance in the U.S., it would appear that Domodedovo [1], Sheremetyevo [2], and Vnukovo [3] all use "international" in their titles. It would appear it is not at all uncommon in Russian airports either. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I just want to point out that several Airports in the UK have "International" in their name, for example:
- Belfast International Airport
- Glasgow International Airport
- Kent International Airport
- Leeds Bradford International Airport
- Norwich International Airport
- Also Manchester Airport was formerly "Manchester International Airport" until 1986, London Luton Airport was also formerly "Luton International Airport".
It is up to the airport to decide what official name it should have. On Wikipedia Domodedovo International Airport is called DIA not DA, if you want to change it to "Domodedovo Airport" then take the discussion to Talk:Domodedovo International Airport. This article should copy whatever the Airport is called on Wikipedia. We should have consistency throughout this encyclopaedia. Regards IJA (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
This is too much edit
I see I am blocked. This is very heavy handed, like when the police in dictatorships lock people up for no reason. This is a computer lounge and I see that 2 other uses are blocked. However, those two are probably accused of being socks but they are just one user who asked for a name change to the other.
Basically, it is sour grapes because a user, Tvoz, lost a consensus war and complained to Alison, trying to get retribution. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlison&action=historysubmit&diff=411219473&oldid=410813678
after losing here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGabrielle_Giffords&action=historysubmit&diff=410882916&oldid=410881409
Frankly, I don't care about that argument or discussion but I strong disagree with disgruntled users trying to hurt innocent people, like me, with the supposition that if I get my enemies blocked, it is ok even if innocent bystanders also get blocked. This is improper according to the Wikipedia rule that it is wrong to block in order to gain advantage in a content dispute. Nesteoil (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Nesteoil (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
see above (This is too much) for unblock reason. The other blocked editor fails the duck test, he/she is very crude and I am a good editor. Also see that it is wrong to block in order to gain advantage in a content dispute...see diffs
Decline reason:
Block by a checkuser for socking, which you do not address in an intelligible manner. Sandstein 23:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{unblock|Answering Sandstein's concerns, I have not engaged in sockpuppetry. I have never created a new user account in order for that 2nd account to agree with me. The bulk of my edits are to esoteric articles, like a 1981 terrorist attack in Puerto Rico or a centuries old earthquake. Thank you.}} It's hard for me to verify that your second account is a legitimate one, because I don't know its username. What's your other account or accounts name? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Pacific 1818 is supposed to be my second account but it is not me. I object to the demeanor of Pacific. I see we both, along with 100's of other people, edited the 2011 Tucson shooting but all my edits are very reasonable and not about the same topics. This is a computer in a snack lounge. If I ever edit in a way that is threatening people's lives or is vandalism, by all means block me. But I am a reasonable person who doesn't do antics like that, Fisher. Basically, the problem is that a disgruntled user, Tvoz, was mad about the consensus deciding against Tvoz and then wanted the checkuser to go fishing. The checkuser found a lounge computer, great...block everyone who snacks here. If you are dead set against me editing, just say so and I couldn't care less about Wikipedia and will leave, but know that this really isn't the fair or just thing to do. Thanks. Nesteoil (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
This request has sat around for a long time with no action. This shows the weakness of Wikipedia. It is subject to the whim of people who can block. They are not accountable. They don't have to explain anything, merely make up a reason on the block log. Then when an unblock is requested, it is denied with a flimsy excuse given or, in this case, nobody wants to dare cross the blocking person. Sometimes, when a company gives really bad service and cheats the customer, or the police knowingly and falsely arrest someone, or if your car gets damaged in a hit and run, you have to accept it and move on. This doesn't excuse how bad Wikipedia is.
If there was some accountability in Wikipedia, the problems would be less. Other websites do not have the problems of Wikipedia. They simply lay out the rules and administrators who act carelessly or act wrong are discharged. I, myself, am not the vindictive type nor do I have the time. However, I strongly suspect that part (not all) of the vandalism problem are frustrated people retaliating for bad treatment on Wikipedia. Nesteoil (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
PLEASE DO NOT ADD SNIDE COMMENTS OR TRY TO JUSTIFY STUFF. IT IS RUDE, CONTRARY TO MY REQUEST, AND I PROBABLY WON'T SEE IT.